At what point does it become unacceptable for a mentor to design/build the robot

[EricH]

Originally Posted by pfreivald

I stand by the argument that worrying about your own behavior and your own team is much, much more constructive.

And that is where I stand as well. As I told some rookie teams last year: "It might look like mentors built it. It might look like students built it. You don't know for sure; if you're curious go talk to the team. But whatever you do, please bear in mind that there is nothing saying that either method is wrong."

Now, if someone on a team thinks that a mentor(s) are going too far or not far enough, and asks for help, that means that they want someone to help them. In that case, I would advise, but only in a general, "this is something that might help" or "this is the way we do it, maybe it'll work for you" way. Beyond that, I go back to focusing on my own team/work.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by Ivan Malik

With the debate of primarily mentors built vs primarily student built, FIRST proper (aka dean, woody, etc.) has never issued any sort of ruling on the matter. It is rather safe to say that they are the governing authority of FIRST at large. Their silence means that it is up to the rest of the FIRST community to form some sort of tacit or un-tacit construct that controls this idea among the community at-large. This will happen either with a conscious community effort or naturally without any conscious control of it by the community.

The following is a quote from Dave Lavery from the 2008 kickoff. The full transcript is here: http://robotics.arc.nasa.gov/events/...transcript.php

But a lot of people say Dave, isn't that hard and tough?
Guess what?
This is supposed to be hard, this is supposed to be difficult.
Dean mentioned already if you think the program is about robots you're missing part of the message.
There are a lot of teams out there, and i know i'll hear back from them about this, there are a lot of teams out there who are built solely of students as a student-built, student-run, student-organized team from end to end to the process.
I congratulate them what they're able to accomplish and do.
They're able to participate with no problem at all.
Do the task we're setting out for them.
If you think the task is about building a robot.
My challenge to the teams is, part of what we're trying to do is get you exposed to real world technologies practices, people who are professionals.
If you're doing this with your team you're able to build the robot and able to compete and be able to be a participant in the program but i think you're missing the point if you don't have an engineering on your team or two or three or four because you aren't taking advantage of the opportunity to expose your team and your students to real world engineering practices to learn to be inspired by the professionals to which you have access.
So is this a hard problem?
Yes.
It's supposed hard.
We're making it hard because we want you to be encouraged to go out and get professional engineering help for your teams to help solve this stuff.
That's how you're going to get the most benefit out of the entire program.

While he doesn't address how much mentor vs how much student, it's very clear that no mentor involvement is not the correct answer.

[Ivan Malik]

Originally Posted by Joe Ross

While he doesn't address how much mentor vs how much student, it's very clear that no mentor involvement is not the correct answer.

Nice find, I vaguely remember hearing this as a student that year. Have they ever come closer to making a ruling on the age old question?

This is what makes FIRST so much more successful, most times, compared to other programs like it; but, I don't think anyone will argue for zero mentor involvement. The question that needs to be answered, and is why this thread is actually constructive: how much is too much mentor?

This isn't some all or nothing question, it's going to be somewhere in the middle. It's also not going to be a one size fits all solution either. But, the end result of this debate should express the unofficial ruling of the community on the subject. Basically set the median point of what is a generally accepted "okay" level of mentorship. A point that can be pointed to, for those who have no clue what FIRST is about, and say "hey start here and adjust to what works best for you." It is not meant to be perfect for anyone, but that is kinda of the point. FIRST the society is not about any one individual team, but rather something that is separate from the sum of its parts.

This is your (who ever is reading this) opportunity to discuss a subject that has the potential to shift how FIRST looks at itself. Take this opportunity to discuss it and not judge others, or think that others are judging you. Be critical, but not destructive to the conversation and don't be to shy or afraid to express how you view things. Nullifying this discussion by taking stances that each individual team should make their own decision is as destructive to the conversation as screaming that someone is wrong. This isn't specifically about your team, but the community at large. You are a part of FIRST and your ideas count, but others have just as much say as you do in this matter.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Ivan Malik

Nice find, I vaguely remember hearing this as a student that year. Have they ever come closer to making a ruling on the age old question?

http://web.archive.org/web/200502052.../DEKA1998.html Yes... They said they don't care. Mind you, that was over 15 years ago...

[nicholsjj]

I have only one thing to bring up that hasn't been said yet. When a person describes a robot as being "mentor built" they are rudely stating that the students were completly imcapable of desiging, building, and programing a quality robot. It is a rude comment that only insults the students and makes the speaker sound like a Missouri Mule. I say this because unless you have knowledge of how a particular team operates then you have no right to claim this. It greatly upsets me when I hear that Team xxxx has a mentor built robot. Then I ask the person how they know that for certain, then that speaker says erll the robot is just beyond student quality. Encounters like this turn my face . Encounters like these can change if teams instead of complaining about "mentor built robots" go and learn about these inspiring robots. You might just learn a lot about what it takes to build a fantastic robot.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

http://web.archive.org/web/200502052.../DEKA1998.html Yes... They said they don't care. Mind you, that was over 15 years ago...

The only people who care about who builds the robot are the people on the sideline. FIRST is just happy someone showed up with a quality product to put on a good show.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The only people who care about who builds the robot are the people on the sideline. FIRST is just happy someone showed up with a quality product to put on a good show.

Is this such a bad thing? Yes, the "do whatever works" is a cop out but it's also better than the alternative. Inspiration comes in many forms and legislating how we are permitted to inspire will remove some of them.

I miss when we used to call Championships the Superbowl of Smarts. Players don't go to the Superbowl to learn. They go to showcase their best. And we watch not to learn how to throw a ball 40 yards to a receiver. We watch to see incredibly athletes performing at their peak. To see the limits of their strength, their drive, their will, and their talent. If we are supposed to be the Superbowl of Smarts people aren't going to watch us to learn how to use a CNC mill. They are going to watch us to see what we are capable of doing with our skill, drive, and passion. We need to put on a good show so that instead of saying "I can be Tim Tebow" (I honestly don't know anything about football and NEED to get a better example) they say "I can be the next Dean Kamen".

[SenorZ]

I personally think mentors should sit behind two-way mirrors and hold a kill switch for all power tools.

[jwallace15]

I support Mentors changing students' ideas, as long as they provide an explanation for why. If they just change an idea someone has without giving reason, the students don't learn from it. If an explanation is provided, it's ok, because the student is learning from a "mistake" they made (I put quotations around mistake because it isn't really a mistake, I don't know another word to call it).
If the student learns from the mentor who changed their idea, they will remember the reasoning for why it wouldn't work, or why it wouldn't be as effective as this other idea. Then the next year, when it comes time to build another robot, the student will remember the concept he was taught the previous year, and incorporate that into their new design.

I was building an electrical enclosure for my train set (not related to robotics, but the story relates, trust me). I was proud and showed my Dad, who has a lot of knowledge about electrical enclosures (as the company he works for, ABB, has both a robotics division (in which he works), and an electrical division, which he comes into contact with frequently). He pointed out that my enclosure wasn't grounded. So I listened to his advice, remembered it for future reference, and grounded my enclosure. A month later (last week, to be exact), I was making an electrical panel to mount switches on (also for my train set). I went to show my Dad my work, and he asked if it was grounded. Fortunately, I remembered his advice, and had already grounded it.

In this build season, I was making spacers for our robot. I went on making it, and got two done, when my mentor Gary showed me a more effective way to make it (it had to be cut, have holes drilled on each side, and be threaded). Yesterday I was remaking shafts for our wheels. They were made nearly the same way as the spacers, just three times as long. I remembered Gary's method for making the spacers, and used that method while making the shafts.

I do not represent my team in this post, I represent myself and my own ideas.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by jwallace15

I support Mentors changing students' ideas, as long as they provide an explanation for why. If they just change an idea someone has without giving reason, the students don't learn from it. If an explanation is provided, it's ok, because the student is learning from a "mistake" they made (I put quotations around mistake because it isn't really a mistake, I don't know another word to call it).
If the student learns from the mentor who changed their idea, they will remember the reasoning for why it wouldn't work, or why it wouldn't be as effective as this other idea. Then the next year, when it comes time to build another robot, the student will remember the concept he was taught the previous year, and incorporate that into their new design.

I would suggest that instead of "changing", mentors should "challenge". That is, they should ask the students "Why did you do it this way?" and "Have you considered the following items...?" This does not change an idea for someone, it opens that person's eyes to things they may not have considered and allows them to change their idea. It also opens the door for them to say, "I didn't see that, how would you deal with it?" and let mentoring take place. Even more effective, as the students now know some hazards to look for.

[jwallace15]

Originally Posted by EricH

I would suggest that instead of "changing", mentors should "challenge". That is, they should ask the students "Why did you do it this way?" and "Have you considered the following items...?" This does not change an idea for someone, it opens that person's eyes to things they may not have considered and allows them to change their idea. It also opens the door for them to say, "I didn't see that, how would you deal with it?" and let mentoring take place. Even more effective, as the students now know some hazards to look for.

That sounds a lot better, I didn't think of it that way. It sounds like something an engineer would say (rather than "That idea is stupid, it will never work"). Our lead build mentor will typically ask, "Why?" when we propose an idea to him, and then coach us on a simpler or more effective way to accomplish what they are trying to do.